I'd love to see ideas given some kind of weighting, so I hope some brave people can do this.
I think that it's worth leaving the article in question as 'greenhouse gas remediation' as there may well be other ideas that come forward for non-CO2 GHGs in due course. As regards the 'blowback' effects - I was just trying to get across the risk that OIF experiements could unleash some horrors on the ocean, and the nutrient effects etc mentioned are the kind of thing I was trying to highlight. I've made changes, but please check them to make sure I've understood correctly. 2008/12/31 Dan Whaley <[email protected]>: > I suppose, although the abstract mentions that a 10 to 20 fold theoretical > improvement in efficiency would be needed to even get the proposal within > rational reach of consideration. > > There should probably be a grouping in these wikis between the ideas which > have received some serious consideration over time versus the offhand > proposals which even the propsers see as farfetched. To the uninitiated, it > appears that all these concepts are approximately equivalent. > > Also-- "blowback" effects from N2O? Strange use of language. Any rational > methodology simply deducts the radiative forcing of N2O produced from the > CO2 sequestered and only claims the conservatively calculated net benefit. > Most models in the southern ocean put that at considerably less than 10%. I > wouldn't say that's one of the things that makes OIF 'controversial'... > it's a factor for sure-- but so is accounting for all CO2 produced by the > consumption of fossil fuels involved in carrying out the experiment itself. > The effects on deep ocean oxygen and acidity, or downstream nutrient > depletion would probably be better topics of debate. > > d > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> There's a proposal on the wiki for CFC destruction using lasers. I >> thought it worthy of inclusion. There are probably other techniques >> I'm not aware of. >> >> details at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_remediation#CFC_Photochemistry >> >> A >> >> 2008/12/31 Dan Whaley <[email protected]>: >> > I understand the intent to include all greenhouse gases, but the reality >> > is >> > that while there is a history of emissions control for many gases, there >> > is >> > really no established history for the active *removal* of all gases. >> > The >> > simple fact is that unless I am forgetting something I know of zero >> > proposals to enable the direct atmospheric removal of anything other >> > than >> > CO2. >> > >> > Are there biologic processes for instance that demand atmospheric N2O or >> > atmospheric CH4 instead of CO2? Perhaps, but none that I am aware of >> > proposed by humans for mitigation purposes. >> > >> > I think Atmospheric Carbon Removal is the closest thing we here have >> > come up >> > with that accurately identifies the category. >> > >> > It distinguishes it from CCS (i.e. flue-gas capture and sequestration) >> > at >> > focuses it specifically on OIF, Lackner trees, and some of David's >> > concepts. Accelerated weathering perhaps. >> > >> > D >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Andrew--While I have not yet had time to check out your efforts >> >> and >> >> offer thoughts on editing, some ideas for the next effort. >> >> >> >> So that you are not just covering the removal of CO2, I would think >> >> something like "Atmospheric composition management" of "Active >> >> management >> >> of >> >> atmospheric composition" would be best--you might even have it be a >> >> subheading for "Atmospheric composition" and then have links from >> >> geoengineering-related entries. In addition to the removal ideas for >> >> CO2, >> >> you could cover any that arise for methane, and even go back to the >> >> ones >> >> proposed for CFCs that included lasers to decompose them, with the >> >> laser >> >> beam bounced back and forth between mirrors on mountaintops to get a >> >> sufficiently long pathlength to give high probability of striking a >> >> molecule. >> >> >> >> And, of course, one would want to somehow link this in to mitigation of >> >> GHGs--which would be said to do at the source. And you would need to >> >> link >> >> to >> >> ideas about reforestation/afforestation. >> >> >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/30/08 9:35 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I am planning to start a new wiki on the various techniques such as >> >> > fake plastic trees, biochar etc, designed to remove GHGs from the >> >> > atmosphere. >> >> > >> >> > To avoid the naming dramas, I suggest the following, but would >> >> > invite >> >> > new/better suggestions: >> >> > >> >> > Carbon Dioxide removal? (too specific) >> >> > Greenhouse gas removal? (too geeky?) >> >> > Gas Geoengineering? (will anyone know what it means) >> >> > >> >> > A >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
